Short versus standard implants associated with sinus floor elevation: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes

Clinical Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Short Implants Placed in Posterior Maxilla: A Case-Control Study

INTRODUCTION

Short implants are today a reliable, minimally invasive option for the rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla. However, maintaining marginal bone stability remains a crucial factor for long-term success, particularly in the case of short implants. The present multicenter prospective case-control study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of bone-level and tissue-level short implants in the posterior maxilla, focusing on implant survival and peri-implant marginal bone stability over 1 year of function.

METHODS

Fifty-nine patients who met specific inclusion criteria were enrolled and treated by three clinical centers with a total of 74 short implants, either bone-level (7 mm in length, placed 1 mm sub-crestally) or tissue-level (5 or 6.5 mm in length). The primary outcome was physiological bone remodeling (PBR) measured via radiographs at baseline (T0), prosthesis delivery (T1), and 12 months post-loading (T2). Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate differences in PBR between groups, with multivariate analysis assessing the influence of various patient and site-specific factors.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 58 patients who were treated with a total of 71 short implants, comprising 36 tissue-level and 35 bone-level implants (one patient dropped out as he did not attend follow-up visits on time). All implants were rehabilitated with fixed, screwed prosthetics after 5 months, with no recorded complications up to 1 year of loading. Stability was similar between the two implant types at T0 and T1, with no significant differences in insertion torque and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Multivariate analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between insertion torque and ISQ at T0, as well as with bicortical engagement of the implant apex with the sinus floor. Tissue-level implants demonstrated significantly lower peri-implant bone remodeling (PBR) compared to bone-level implants at both T1 (0.11 ± 0.27 mm vs. 0.34 ± 0.35 mm, p = 0.004) and T2 (0.30 ± 0.23 mm vs. 0.55 ± 0.42 mm, p = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed a significant positive correlation between PBR (T0-T1) and thin vertical mucosal thickness (≤ 2 mm) at T0 in both tissue-level and bone-level implants. Additionally, PBR (T1-T2) in both groups significantly correlated with the use of short prosthetic abutments (≤ 2 mm) and, only in bone-level implants, with crown emergence angles > 30°.

CONCLUSION

Both tissue-level and bone-level short implants are effective options for implant-supported rehabilitation in the posterior maxilla. Tissue-level short implants offer superior marginal bone stability compared to bone-level implants placed subcrestally, suggesting their favorable use in clinical practice.

Risk Factors for Implant Failure Following Transcrestal Sinus-Floor Elevation: A Case Report and Literature Review

Although transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) is widely used for cases of insufficient residual bone height in the posterior maxilla, few studies focus on the risk factors of early implant failure associated with TSFE procedures. This study aimed to identify and summarize the possible risk factors of implant failure associated with TSFE to ensure a more predictable implant survival rate using TSFE. We report the treatment of a patient with implant failure following TSFE and discuss this case's possible associated risk factors. A standard implant with a diameter of 4.8 mm and length of 10 mm was used after the TSFE procedure. Implant loosening was suddenly observed 6 weeks after the initial surgery. Factors that could result in early implant failure included patient-related risk factors, anatomical factors of the operational area, and operation- and implant-related factors. Within the current study's limitations, the graft material particles between the implant surface and socket could be considered a direct risk factor resulting in implant failure. Therefore, more attention should be paid to socket cleaning during the TSFE procedure, and loose particulate grafting materials should be discouraged. Another significant consideration for implant loss is the possibility of fractures in the buccal or palatal cortical plates during the site preparation and implant insertion. Thus, these factors should be studied further and receive more clinical attention.

Outcomes of treatment with short dental implants compared with standard-length implants: a retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

The size of dental implants is a key success factor for appropriate osseointegration. Using shorter implants allows the possibility of avoiding complex surgical procedures and reduces the morbidity of treatment. Shorter implants also enable implant-prosthetic rehabilitation after maxillofacial reconstructions where only limited bone is available. In this study, the success rates of short implants were examined and compared to those of standard-sized implants.

METHODS

Patients who received dental implants between 2007 and 2016 at the Department of Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology Semmelweis University were enrolled in the study. Several clinical parameters were recorded and supplemented with radiological examinations. The data were statistically analysed.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients with a total of 60 implants were included. The average time after prosthetic loading was 39.33 ± 21.96 months in the group with 8-mm implants and 41.6 ± 27.5 months in the group with > 8-mm implants. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of probing depth (short implants, 2.84 ± 0.09 mm; standard implants, 2.91 ± 0.35 mm) or mean marginal bone loss (short implants, 1.2 ± 1.21-mm mesially and 1.36 ± 1.47-mm distally; standard implants: 0.63 ± 0.80-mm mesially and 0.78 ± 0.70-mm distally).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the success rate of short dental implants was comparable to that of standard-sized implants. Consequently, it can be claimed that the long-term success of short dental implants does not differ significantly from the long-term success of standard implants.

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess implant survival and complications rate of modern subperiosteal implants (CAD designed and additively manufactured).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using three electronic databases; Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library, and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: "In patients with bone atrophy (P), do additively manufactured subperiosteal implants (I), compared to subperiosteal implants manufactured following traditional approaches (c), present satisfactory implant survival and complication rates (O)? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023424211). Included articles quality was assessed using the "NIH quality assessment tools".

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were finally selected (5 cohort studies and 8 case series), including 227 patients (121 female / 106 male; weighted mean age 62.4 years) and 227 implants. After a weighted mean follow-up time of 21.4 months, 97.8% of implants were in function (5 failures reported), 58 implants (25.6%) presented partial exposure, 12 patients (5.3%) suffered soft tissue or persistent infection. Fracture of the interim prosthesis was reported in 8 of the155 patients (5.2%) in which the use of a provisional prosthesis was reported. A great heterogeneity was found in terms of study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, modern additively manufactured subperiosteal implants presented a good survival in the short-time, but a noticeable number of soft-tissue related complications were reported. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical behavior in the medium- and long-term.

Treatment alternatives for the rehabilitation of the posterior edentulous maxilla

Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can represent a significant clinical challenge due to limited bone availability and surgical access, among other factors. This review addresses several treatment options to replace missing teeth in posterior maxillary segments, namely the placement of standard implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation, short implants, tilted implants, and distal cantilever extensions. Pertinent technical information and a concise summary of relevant evidence on the reported outcomes of these different therapeutic approaches are presented, along with a set of clinical guidelines to facilitate decision-making processes and optimize the outcomes of therapy.

Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess the body of evidence of short versus regular implants after bone augmentation (BA) in the atrophic posterior mandible in the context of implant treatment success outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases, two registries, and reference lists were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR/MA), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies published in English, Spanish or German since 2012. Confidence in the SR/MA methodology was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and the risk of bias of primary studies using Cochrane's RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis and a meta-regression were performed for continuous and dichotomous outcomes. GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs/MAs, most of them "critically low" and "low" confidence with substantial overlap, included 14 relevant RCTs with a high risk of bias. A cohort study with moderate risk of bias was added. Quantitative synthesis of 595 implants and 281 hemiarches/patients indicates that the use of short implants (< 10 mm) compared to regular implants and BA may reduce implant failure at 1-year follow-up, and marginal bone loss (MBL) at 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; is likely to reduce the risk of biological complications at 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; and may be the patient's preferred alternative. There is a correlation between bone height, MBL and biological complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence partially suggests that the use of short implants could decrease implant failure, MBL, and biological complications, and increase patient satisfaction. However, given the need for further RCTs and real-world evidence to fully evaluate short- and long-term outcomes, it would be prudent for clinicians to carefully consider the individual needs and circumstances of the patients before deciding whether to use short implants. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022333526.

Simultaneous placement of short implants (≤ 8 mm) versus standard length implants (≥ 10 mm) after sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxillae: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual bone height (RBH).

Methods

An electronic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1994 to July 2022, in combination with a manual search of references in relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical results between short and standard implant placement with SFE were included. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL); the secondary outcome was complication rate.

Results

Three RCTs were included, totaling 138 short and 156 standard implants. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the short and standard implant groups in survival rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI   0.96–1.08, p = 0.570), MBL (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI   − 0.32 to 0.07, p = 0.190) and complication rate (intra-surgical complication: RR = 1.14, 95% CI   0.46–2.83, p = 0.770; post-operative complication: RR = 1.34, 95% CI   0.71–2.55, p = 0.370).

Conclusions

Using short implants (≤ 8 mm) combined with OSFE might be an alternative to standard implants (≥ 10 mm) with SFE when the RBH of the posterior maxilla is insufficient. Based on a short-term clinical observation, short implants with OSFE show good results in terms of survival rate, MBL, and complication incidence.

Graphical Abstract

Single-crown restorations in premolar-molar regions: short (≤ 6.5) vs longer implants: retrospective cohort study

Purpose

To compare the survival, changes in marginal bone level and prosthetic complications rate of short (≤ 6.5 mm) and longer implants (≥ 7.5) supporting a single-crown restoration in the maxillary/mandibular premolar or molar region.

Methods

This cohort study was conducted following the STROBE statement recommendations for observational studies. Clinical outcomes of 88 short implants in 78 patients and 88 long implants in 88 patients were examined. All the implants had been placed by the same surgeon and restored following the same prosthetic concept; using a transepithelial abutment (intermediate abutment) and a screw retained restoration.

Results

All the implants were in function after the follow-up period since insertion (median: 31 months; range 11 to 84 for SiG vs median: 35 months; range: 6–117 for CG; p = 0.139). No statistical differences (p = 0.342) were observed related to prosthetic complications (screw loosening 2/88 vs 5/88 CG, ceramic chipping 1/88 vs 0/88, temporary crown resin chipping 1/88 vs 0/88 for SiG and CG, respectively) or related to marginal bone level (Mesial or Distal MBL ≥ 2 mm in 1/88 implants for SiG vs 3/88 for CG; p = 0.312).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, no survival differences have been observed between short implants and longer implants in single-crown restorations in posterior maxilla/mandible.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2021 dental literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to coverage of this broad topical area. Specific subject areas addressed, in order of the appearance in this report, include COVID-19 and the dental profession (new); prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence daily dental treatment decisions with an emphasis on future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published daily, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. Rather, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater details on their own. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in negotiating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the patients and dental problems they encounter.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms as a predisposing factor for the development of apical periodontitis-An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

The interaction between heredity and different environmental factors in the modification of apical periodontitis (AP) susceptibility and prediction of its progression remain poorly elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

This umbrella review aimed to (i) analyse the available relevant systematic reviews in an attempt to determine the association between genotype and allelic distribution of different single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and the development of AP, (ii) report deficiencies and gaps in knowledge in this area and (iii) present recommendations to conduct future clinical studies and systematic reviews.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to October 2021, with no language restrictions, including a grey literature search. Systematic reviews with/without meta-analysis evaluating genotype and allelic distribution of different SNPs between adult patients with/ without AP were included. All other type of studies were excluded. The methodological quality was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 tool. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction and appraising the included reviews; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

The current study includes five systematic reviews. Three reviews performed meta-analysis. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'critically low' quality, whereas the other two were graded as 'low' and 'moderate' quality. Two reviews indicated that carriers of specific genotypes and alleles of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) -308 G > A and interleukin 1-beta (IL-1β) + 3954 C/T gene polymorphisms are more susceptible to an acute and persistent form of AP. However, high heterogeneity was observed.

DISCUSSION

The statistical heterogeneity within included systematic reviews was a consequence of clinical and methodological diversity amongst primary studies. Although some of the included reviews suggested that carriers of specific genotype and/or allele of TNF-α -308 G > A and IL-1β + 3954 C/T SNPs are more susceptible to AP, their conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

No candidate genes could be identified as a definitive genetic risk or protective factor for the development and progression of AP, and further high-quality genome-wide association studies are warranted.

Posterior jaws rehabilitation with < 7mm-short implants. A review

INTRODUCTION

The results with shorter and shorter implants have been revolutionizing the implantology scenario and are worthy of being well-analyzed and understood. This review aims to add further knowledge about the last 10-years observation period on < 7mm-short implants in the posterior atrophic jaws, better defining the indication of their use.

METHODS

From a Medline database research, systematic reviews, controlled and no- controlled trials (CT, n-CT) with ≥ 3years-follow-ups on <7 mm / ≥ 5mm-short implants (group A), and clinical studies with ≥ 1year-follow-up on 4mm-short implants (group B) were considered. The outcomes, in terms of implant survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL), and complications were analyzed according to the duration of follow-ups, implant site (maxilla and mandible), type of prosthesis (single crown or splinted units), vertically impaired or normal sites.

RESULTS

Thirty-four trials (28 for group A and six for group B) were selected. Group A: a mean follow up of 5,8 (3-10) years came out; pre-and post-loading SR range was 94.4- 100% and 89.6-100%, respectively; the range of MBL was 0.12-1.49; 50% of CT found less statistically significant surgical complications in comparison with standard implants (ST) in reconstructed sites, while major prosthetic problems were recorded with short -implants (SH) in 37.5% of CT; in no atrophied sites, a mean SR range of 86.7-100 % vs. 88-100 % and a total bone loss of 2 vs.1.6 for SH vs.ST emerged. Group B: the overall mean follow-up period was 2,3 years, and the pre-and post- SR ranges were 93-100 % and 87.5-100 %, respectively. The MBL range was 0.02- 0.63 mm. All RCT reported significantly fewer surgical complications with SH than with ST in reconstructed mandibles within one year. No prosthetic complications were reported for up to 5 years using no pontics or cantilevers fixed bridges.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar or even better results for SH than ST in terms of post-loading SR and MBL came out for < 7mm/ ≥ 5mm-short implants in atrophic bone regardless of the prosthetic solutions, with less surgical complications but a few more prosthetic problems; the good results up to 5 years for 4mm-short implants in mandibles are associated with splinted and no-risk prosthetic solutions.

A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

Extra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: - 0.22, CI - 0.277 to - 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI - 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).